Solution to the energy shortage?
RichD
Jesus saves (you money)!
--
Rich
Ben Goren
> http://tinyurl.com/5azsor
>
> Jesus saves (you money)!
You sure that's not an article from /The Onion/?
This from the article:
> "God is the only one we can turn to at this point," said Twyman,
> 59. "Our leaders don't seem to be able to do anything about
> it. The prices keep soaring and soaring."
...and yet, God doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it,
either. The prices keep soaring and soaring.
And this:
> "I've seen him work miracles in my life," Twyman said. "He told
> us that all we need to do is ask and believe. He can do it, and
> he will do it, but we have to ask him to do it."
So, God knows it's the right thing to do, but he refuses to do it
unless enough people kiss his ass first.
And people actually believe this shit?
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Irish Mike
"Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209311489_786@isp.n...
> RichD wrote:
>
> > http://tinyurl.com/5azsor
> >
> > Jesus saves (you money)!
>
> You sure that's not an article from /The Onion/?
>
> This from the article:
>
> > "God is the only one we can turn to at this point," said Twyman,
> > 59. "Our leaders don't seem to be able to do anything about
> > it. The prices keep soaring and soaring."
>
> ...and yet, God doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it,
> either. The prices keep soaring and soaring.
>
> And this:
>
> > "I've seen him work miracles in my life," Twyman said. "He told
> > us that all we need to do is ask and believe. He can do it, and
> > he will do it, but we have to ask him to do it."
>
> So, God knows it's the right thing to do, but he refuses to do it
> unless enough people kiss his ass first.
>
> And people actually believe this shit?
God doesn't act the way you think He should, therefore, your conclusion is
that there is no God. Does that about sum up your deep thought process?
Irish Mike
Ben Goren
> God doesn't act the way you think He should, therefore, your
> conclusion is that there is no God. Does that about sum up your
> deep thought process?
Erm...no. Not by a long shot.
The pantheons upon pantheons of gods ever proposed don't exist for
all sorts of obvious reasons that rarely ever need explaining. I'm
sure you'd agree with me that Brahma, Jupiter, Wodin, and all the
rest are quite silly and you'd have to be most insane to believe
in them. What you refuse to admit, mainly because of the mental
anguish it'd cause you to admit how much of an idiot you've been
all these years, is that your own gods are no different.
All I was doing in the post you replied to was pointing out a
typical absurdity of this particular type of god. If Mr. Twyman
were instead blathering about how all we needed to do to solve the
current economic crisis was ask the Leprechauns to give us some of
the gold they've got stashed in their pots at the ends of the
rainbows, wouldn't you have joined in the chorus of calling him a
dumbass?
Thought so.
Irish Mike
> Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > God doesn't act the way you think He should, therefore, your
> > conclusion is that there is no God. Does that about sum up your
> > deep thought process?
>
> Erm...no. Not by a long shot.
>
> The pantheons upon pantheons of gods ever proposed don't exist for
> all sorts of obvious reasons that rarely ever need explaining. I'm
> sure you'd agree with me that Brahma, Jupiter, Wodin, and all the
> rest are quite silly and you'd have to be most insane to believe
> in them. What you refuse to admit, mainly because of the mental
> anguish it'd cause you to admit how much of an idiot you've been
> all these years, is that your own gods are no different.
>
> All I was doing in the post you replied to was pointing out a
> typical absurdity of this particular type of god. If Mr. Twyman
> were instead blathering about how all we needed to do to solve the
> current economic crisis was ask the Leprechauns to give us some of
> the gold they've got stashed in their pots at the ends of the
> rainbows, wouldn't you have joined in the chorus of calling him a
> dumbass?
Only a fool would taunt a Banshee, Leprechaun or Silkee . I showed your
e-mail to a tinker woman. She said... well, just be very careful.
Irish Mike
Ben Goren
My sentiments exactly.
RichD
> >http://tinyurl.com/5azsor
> > Jesus saves (you money)!
>
> > 59. "Our leaders don't seem to be able to do anything about
> > it. The prices keep soaring and soaring."
>
> ...and yet, God doesn't seem to be able to do anything about it,
> either. The prices keep soaring and soaring.
>
> And this:
>
> > "I've seen him work miracles in my life," Twyman said. "He told
> > us that all we need to do is ask and believe. He can do it, and
> > he will do it, but we have to ask him to do it."
>
> So, God knows it's the right thing to do, but he refuses to do it
> unless enough people kiss his ass first.
>
> And people actually believe this shit?
Fear of death trumps rationality, for all but
a few, who might be termed freaks...
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only
Son, so that everyone who believes in him might
not perish but might have eternal life."
John 3:16
--
Rich
Irish Mike
"RichD" <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6e67728d-10bb-456d...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Rich
It's been my experience that very few people are afraid of death - until
they face it.
Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
Irish Mike
Irish Mike
Ben Goren
> It's been my experience that very few people are afraid of death
> - until they face it.
I've faced death a number of times. I'm certainly not fond of the
idea, but I wouldn't say I'm afraid of it. I intend to do
everything I reasonably can to enjoy as much of life for as long
as I can, but I can't see much point in fearing death. After all,
I was dead for a dozen billion years or so before now; I imagine
I'll get used to it again after at least the first million years,
if not sooner.
Dying I'd really, really rather avoid, at least in almost all the
forms it usually takes.
> Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
Which god would that be, and what makes it so unique to single it
out for special attention?
Kadaitcha Man
> > Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
>
> Which god would that be<BITCHSLAP>
Pick one.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
Irish Mike
believe in God. You don't. Fine. I believe there is an after life. You
believe when your few years on earth are over there is nothing. Fine. Good
luck. Good bye.
Irish Mike
"Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
news:1209350818_837@isp.n...
Kadaitcha Man
news:%VbRj.11592$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I've had this discussion with enough atheists to know it's pointless.
Oh, but it isn't pointless. There is nothing pointless about showing the
BAAWAAAAAAWAAAAH Knights of atheism that atheism is inconsistent and
illogical. I do it all the time, but they do so hate to admit it.
There is much fun to be had in getting an alt.atheism atheist to define a
level of evidence for a Metaphysical X that does not entail a logical error
on the part of the atheist. alt.atheism arheists are collectively witless to
the idea that it is illogical to demand physically substantive evidence of
something that has no physical substance, and they will avoid that truth at
all costs.
The point being, atheism is prima facie illogical, whereas theism is
provably logical, therefore the burden is on the atheist to articulate a
logical, consistent, coherent framework for their personal atheism, and they
all have different ideas of what atheism is.
The funny part is, there is no logical, consistent, coherent framework for
any kind of atheism. The boot is on the other foot. You just have to know
where to aim it.
>> --
>> EAC Memographer
>> BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
>> ``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
--
Christopher A. Lee
<nospam.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:%VbRj.11592$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>> I've had this discussion with enough atheists to know it's pointless.
>
>Oh, but it isn't pointless. There is nothing pointless about showing the
>BAAWAAAAAAWAAAAH Knights of atheism that atheism is inconsistent and
>illogical. I do it all the time, but they do so hate to admit it.
Kiddycar Boy is back again.
Fuck off and die, in-your-face nasty liar.
<plonk>
Clave
news:1r09ls....@news.alt.net...
<...>
> The point being, atheism is prima facie illogical, whereas theism is
> provably logical...
Funny stuff there.
Jim
Dutch
> news:%VbRj.11592$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
>> I've had this discussion with enough atheists to know it's pointless.
>
> Oh, but it isn't pointless. There is nothing pointless about showing the
> BAAWAAAAAAWAAAAH Knights of atheism that atheism is inconsistent and
> illogical. I do it all the time, but they do so hate to admit it.
>
> There is much fun to be had in getting an alt.atheism atheist to define a
> level of evidence for a Metaphysical X that does not entail a logical
> error on the part of the atheist. alt.atheism arheists are collectively
> witless to the idea that it is illogical to demand physically substantive
> evidence of something that has no physical substance, and they will avoid
> that truth at all costs.
>
> The point being, atheism is prima facie illogical, whereas theism is
> provably logical, therefore the burden is on the atheist to articulate a
> logical, consistent, coherent framework for their personal atheism, and
> they all have different ideas of what atheism is.
>
> The funny part is, there is no logical, consistent, coherent framework for
> any kind of atheism. The boot is on the other foot. You just have to know
> where to aim it.
shhh, just breathe...
ne...@buffy.sighup.org.uk
> The point being, atheism is prima facie illogical, whereas theism is
> provably logical, therefore the burden is on the atheist to articulate a
> logical, consistent, coherent framework for their personal atheism, and they
> all have different ideas of what atheism is.
OK. What is the proof?
> The funny part is, there is no logical, consistent, coherent framework for
> any kind of atheism. The boot is on the other foot. You just have to know
> where to aim it.
Atheists think for themselves so there is no "party line." But they all
reject the concept of gods as an answer for anything.
--
Isaac Asimov: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Irish Mike" <mjo...@ameritech.net> contains these words:
> I've had this discussion with enough atheists to know it's pointless. I
> believe in God. You don't. Fine. I believe there is an after life. You
> believe when your few years on earth are over there is nothing. Fine.
> Good
> luck. Good bye.
You are welcome to your delusion. You have fallen for the oldest and
neatest con trick in the world. There is no life after death but you
will be dead before you find out you have been lied to or could warn
anyone else.
--
********
David WG
********
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam.nos...@gmail.com> contains these words:
> The funny part is, there is no logical, consistent, coherent framework for
> any kind of atheism. The boot is on the other foot. You just have to know
> where to aim it.
Mankind has been a serial inventor of gods but no one anywhere has ever
been able to produce any credible evidence for the existence of any god
for the very simple reason that gods only exist in the imagination of
believers.
Atheism is entirely logical for it is nothing more than not believing in
gods.
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>
>>> Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
>>
>> Which god would that be<BITCHSLAP>
>
> Pick one.
So, you're trying to tell us that Ra created the world? Such a
daring and bold move!
Ben Goren
> There is much fun to be had in getting an alt.atheism atheist to
> define a level of evidence for a Metaphysical X that does not
> entail a logical error on the part of the atheist.
What do you mean by this word, ``Metaphysical''? But never mind
that, you've got something more interesting further down:
> The point being, atheism is prima facie illogical, whereas
> theism is provably logical
Oh, really? This'll be good. Let's begin, shall we?
If theism is provably logical, then there must be strict
definitions to the terms which we can all agree upon. Not only is
that a bedrock of logic, but it's essential -- if, by ``shoe,''
for example, you mean ``a mass of undigested hair coughed up by a
cat,'' then there's no point in me mentioning the cobbler who
lives down the street.
So, to kick things off, how 'bout you telling us, precisely, what
you mean by the word, ``god.'' How is somebody to know that one
particular entity is a god while another is not?
Good luck. You'll need it.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Bill M
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:godRj.227069$pM4.124239@pd7urf1no...
You are in effect saying that something exists if I can't prove it does not
exist.
This is pure illogic. It is logical to assume something does not exist if
there is NO
OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for its existence!
The Trucker
> I've had this discussion with enough atheists to know it's pointless. I
> believe in God. You don't. Fine. I believe there is an after life. You
> believe when your few years on earth are over there is nothing. Fine. Good
> luck. Good bye.
>
> Irish Mike
>
>
> "Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
> news:1209350818_837@isp.n...
>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>
>> > It's been my experience that very few people are afraid of death
>> > - until they face it.
>>
>> I've faced death a number of times. I'm certainly not fond of the
>> idea, but I wouldn't say I'm afraid of it. I intend to do
>> everything I reasonably can to enjoy as much of life for as long
>> as I can, but I can't see much point in fearing death. After all,
>> I was dead for a dozen billion years or so before now; I imagine
>> I'll get used to it again after at least the first million years,
>> if not sooner.
>>
>> Dying I'd really, really rather avoid, at least in almost all the
>> forms it usually takes.
>>
>> > Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
>>
>> Which god would that be, and what makes it so unique to single it
>> out for special attention?
>>
Seems to me a silly thing to discuss:
100 ft in the air atop an antennae tower I misapplied a safety belt and
came very close to falling to my death. As they say, my entire life
flashed before my eyes in less than a second. If I would have died then
this may well have been the last thought I would have for eternity. If I
didn't like it then that would be hell.
It matters what we do.
That is my religious position.
--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend
madMental
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >
> >>> Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
> >>
> >> Which god would that be<BITCHSLAP>
> >
> > Pick one.
>
> So, you're trying to tell us that Ra created the world? Such a
> daring and bold move!
>
> Cheers,
>
> b&
>
I don't think he knows what he's saying.
Hatter
wrote:
>
> There is much fun to be had in getting an alt.atheism atheist to define a
> level of evidence for a Metaphysical X that does not entail a logical error
> on the part of the atheist. alt.atheism arheists are collectively witless to
> the idea that it is illogical to demand physically substantive evidence of
> something that has no physical substance, and they will avoid that truth at
> all costs.
>
However unless the insubtantial can be shown to have an effect, a
measureable effect that is independently verifiable, on the
tangible...it is indistiguishable from "nothing"
This fact nullifies your premise. Atheism remains on sound logical
footing.
Hatter
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:37:16 +0000, Dutch wrote:
> "Kadaitcha Man" <nospam.nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1r09ls....@news.alt.net...
>> The funny part is, there is no logical, consistent, coherent framework
>> for any kind of atheism. The boot is on the other foot. You just have
>> to know where to aim it.
>
> shhh, just breathe...
"In through the mouth, out through the mouth..." :)
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:34:37 +1000, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> The point being, atheism is prima facie illogical, whereas theism is
> provably logical
Believing in unevidenced invisible magic sky pixies is logical. You are
*so* cute. Well, you would be, if you were sane enough to take seriously.
Plonk. Again.
Dutch
I think he's claiming to have a logical argument, although he didn't include
it.
> This is pure illogic. It is logical to assume something does not exist if
> there is NO
> OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE for its existence!
You are replying to my post but not to my comment, so I'll reply to you
nonetheless.
Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character exists,
interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor, compassion, courage,
just to name a few. Many things can be known subjectively but still not be
objectively verifiable. It would be more logical to simply report that you
have seen no objective verifiable evidence of something and leave it at that
rather than to assume anything.
Michael Scheltgen
LOL
pugsley...@yahoo.com
> > Newsgroups
> > ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Exactly. We believe in Gawd and you don't so screw you. I believe all
you non- believers are going to hell and us real smart ones aren't, so
there. Need proof? Crawl into this bottle with me and Mike and you'll
see Gawd.
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >
> >>> Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
> >>
> >> Which god would that be<BITCHSLAP>
> >
> > Pick one.
>
> So, you're trying to tell us that Ra created the world?
Am I? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
> Such a daring and bold move!
<shrug>
panam...@hotmail.com
> [snips]
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:37:16 +0000, Dutch wrote:
> >news:1r09ls....@news.alt.net...
> >> The funny part is, there is no logical, consistent, coherent framework
> >> for any kind of atheism. The boot is on the other foot. You just have
> >> to know where to aim it.
>
> > shhh, just breathe...
>
> "In through the mouth, out through the mouth..." :)
Yup, just like his daddy's dick.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
zzbunker
>
> news:%VbRj.11592$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> > I've had this discussion with enough atheists to know it's pointless.
>
> Oh, but it isn't pointless. There is nothing pointless about showing the
> BAAWAAAAAAWAAAAH Knights of atheism that atheism is inconsistent and
> illogical. I do it all the time, but they do so hate to admit it.
Well, but the people who understand logic, just keep
telling the theists that your agrument is nonsense, so
just keep making more robots fior the idiots.
> "DanielSan" <danielsan1...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
> not exist.news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
>>>>
>>>> Which god would that be<BITCHSLAP>
>>>
>>> Pick one.
>>
>> So, you're trying to tell us that Ra created the world?
>
> Am I? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Easy. I just used my superior command of the English language.
Hey, it's not /my/ problem that you can't write or read worth a
damn!
Ben Goren
> Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
> exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
> compassion, courage, just to name a few.
I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Ben Goren
> "In through the mouth, out through the mouth..." :)
Or, in Kadaitcha Man's case, in through the ass, out through the
ass.
Wait a minute here...how is one to know the difference with him?
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >>> Ben Goren wrote:
> >>>> Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which god would that be<BITCHSLAP>
> >>>
> >>> Pick one.
> >>
> >> So, you're trying to tell us that Ra created the world?
> >
> > Am I? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>
> Easy. I just used my superior command of the English language.
>
> Hey, it's not /my/ problem that you can't write or read worth a
> damn!
Where did I claim "that Ra created the world?"
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
usage." DUHane Arnold <MR. Arn...@Arnold.com> giving technical advice.
news:k96dnd110uImNojV...@earthlink.com
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>>>>> Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which god would that be<BITCHSLAP>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pick one.
>>>>
>>>> So, you're trying to tell us that Ra created the world?
>>>
>>> Am I? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>>
>> Easy. I just used my superior command of the English language.
>>
>> Hey, it's not /my/ problem that you can't write or read worth a
>> damn!
>
> Where did I claim "that Ra created the world?"
Not that bright, are you?
I'll spell it out for you. Let me know if I use any words you
don't understand.
Irish Mike made reference people who claim there aren't any
gods. I asked him which god he had in mind. You suggested I could
pick a god, any god, with the obvious implication that any and all
gods are equally valid. So, I picked a god.
And now it seems that you're trying to back off of your earlier
position that all gods exist.
So, tell me. Where did you get this fantasy that you can out-argue
a BAAWA Knight? Because you're stumbling so badly over your own
feet that, even though I haven't taken a swing yet, you're
bleeding from every orifice.
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >>> Ben Goren wrote:
> >>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >>>>> Ben Goren wrote:
> >>>>>> Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Same applies to people who claim there is no God.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Which god would that be<BITCHSLAP>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Pick one.
> >>>>
> >>>> So, you're trying to tell us that Ra created the world?
> >>>
> >>> Am I? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
> >>
> >> Easy. I just used my superior command of the English language.
> >>
> >> Hey, it's not /my/ problem that you can't write or read worth a
> >> damn!
> >
> > Where did I claim "that Ra created the world?"
>
> Not that bright, are you?
>
> I'll spell it out for you. Let me know if I use any words you
> don't understand.
>
The question is where did I claim "that Ra created the world?" The question
is not what did someone else claim or imply or refer to.
> people who claim there aren't any
> gods. I asked him which god he had in mind. You suggested I could
> pick a god, any god, with the obvious implication that any and all
> gods are equally valid. So, I picked a god.
Oh, so your question about me trying to tell you that Ra created the world
was your way of asserting your choice? Do you often underhandedly create
imaginary, arse about face claims like that? Do you fear making outright
assertions that you can be pinned down on? Hmmm? You fucking coward.
> And now it seems that you're trying to back off of your earlier
> position that all gods exist.
Why on earth would I do that? I have no problem whatsoever in asserting
that, from a definition of God = Metaphysical X, I can give you second order
predicate logic sentences encoding watertight axioms and solutions that show
all gods that are metaphysical necessarily exist.
Do you have a problem with that? And who here is the fool, you or I?
> So, tell me. Where did you get this fantasy that you can out-argue
> a BAAWAWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Knight?
Perhaps the fantasy is yours, arising from a foolhardy and mistaken belief
that you've latched onto yet another illogical frz who cannot out-argue you.
> Because you're stumbling so badly over your own feet that,
And yet it is you who makes implied assumptions from implied claims but
doesn't state them until you're out-bluffed into a corner and forced to
reveal your pathetic poker cards.
"So, you're trying to tell us that Ra created the world?" now becoming "I
picked a god" being a prime example of you doing just that.
"you're trying to back off of your earlier position that all gods exist"
being another.
> even though I haven't taken a swing yet, you're bleeding from every
> orifice.
You need to get your delusions seen to, loser. I am more than beyond your
sub-standard little league.
Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.
Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
Theorem: Necessarily, God exists.
"you're trying to back off of your earlier position that all gods exist"
You didn't expect anyone to step up to your atheist bullshit, did you? Hmmm?
Oopsies!
Choke on that, atheist fuckstain.
Kadaitcha Man
news:40cafd10-904e-4de2...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 29, 12:13 pm, Ben Goren <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, tell me. Where did you get this fantasy that you can out-argue
>> a BAAWAAAAAAAAWAAAAAAH Knight? Because you're stumbling so badly
>> over your own feet that, even though I haven't taken a swing
>> yet, you're bleeding from every orifice.
>>
>>[snip]
>> --
>> EAC Memographer
>> BAAWAAAAAAAAWAAAAAAH Knight of Blasphemy
>
> A real live knight ehh?
>
> Can you kill people with that sword then?
>
> Are you blessed by the will to die for the throne? ^^
Scary, in'e?
Michael Scheltgen
>
> Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.
> Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
>
> Theorem: Necessarily, God exists.
KM, Not that I disagree with you, but what you wrote above appears
tautologous. I'd be interested in seeing a proof of the theorem.
Kadaitcha Man
news:ySyRj.100666$Cj7.57013@pd7urf2no...
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
>>
>> Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.
>> Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
>>
>> Theorem: Necessarily, God exists.
>
> KM, Not that I disagree with you,
Playing safe, huh? :)
> but what you wrote above appears tautologous.
One would not reasonably expect tautological logic from Kurt Gödel.
"One of the most significant logicians of all time, Gödel's work has had
immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the 20th
century..." - wiki.
> I'd be interested in seeing a proof of the theorem.
No problem at all. But first, there is fun to be had with a
BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of atheism.
Oh, bugger it. Here:
Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.
Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
Definition 3: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties those and
only those properties which are positive.
Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is
positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like
is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
Corollary 2: Necessarily, God exists.
After I've had my disguting way with the BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of
atheism's unwilling body I'll show you precisely where the killer twist of
the logic knife is, assuming you don't spot it first, of course.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
> > exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
> > compassion, courage, just to name a few.
>
> I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
> those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
> in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.
Tough job.
If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can verify
it's existence.
Christopher A. Lee
That would be dishonest.
DanielSan
Let's redo your "logic" with another imaginary character:
Definition 1: Albus Dumbledore = Metaphysical X.
Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
Definition 3: x is Dumbledore-like iff x has as essential properties
those and only those properties which are positive.
Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B.
Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is necessarily
exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being Dumbledore-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is
positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e.,
possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being Dumbledore-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is Dumbledore-like, then the property of being
Dumbledore-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being Dumbledore-like is
exemplified.
Corollary 2: Necessarily, Dumbledore exists.
So, now, let me know where Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
is. (By the way, if you don't know, you're committing the classic
"begging the question" fallacy.)
DanielSan
By the way, if you strip out the diversionary tactics within the "logic"
provided, you get to the following:
Existence is positive.
God is positive.
Therefore, God must exist.
Existence is positive.
Dumbledore is positive.
Therefore, Dumbledore must exist.
See the fallacy, KM?
Ben Goren
> You need to get your delusions seen to, loser. I am more than
> beyond your sub-standard little league.
<snork>
Dude, you're just barely ready to graduate from T-ball.
But since you've finally stopped dodging and weaving, I'll go
ahead and toss you a couple easy pitches. But let's try to
consolidate this thread, mkay?
You'll have your response to the other post soon.
Ben Goren
> Definition 1: God = Metaphysical X.
>
> Definition 2: Metaphysical = Without physical form or substance.
>
> Definition 3: x is God-like iff x has as essential properties
> those and only those properties which are positive.
>
> Definition 4: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x
> has B necessarily iff A entails B.
>
> Definition 5: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is
> necessarily exemplified.
>
> Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not
> positive.
>
> Axiom 2: Any property entailed by a positive property is
> positive.
>
> Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive.
>
> Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily
> positive.
>
> Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive.
>
> Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being
> necessarily P is positive.
>
> Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent,
> i.e., possibly exemplified.
>
> Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
>
> Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being
> God-like is an essence of that thing.
>
> Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is
> exemplified.
>
> Corollary 2: Necessarily, God exists.
<golf clap>
Very nice, skippy.
Now, before we continue, let's see if you're even tall enough to
enter the gate.
Whose ``proof'' did you quote above?
Did he or she ever publish it? Why or why not?
The person who authored the ``proof'' is much better known for
certain other works of logic. Care to mention the most famous
of them? Also, other logicians worked on some very well-known
variations on the same basic them. Care to mention any of them?
The ``proof'' is, essentially, a formalization of a well-known
argument for the existence of the modern Western theological god
named, ``God.'' Who was the first to propose this argument, and
what is the argument typically called?
If you can make it past that, then it might actually be worth the
time to see if you can spot where the ``proof'' goes worng.
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>
>>> Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
>>> exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
>>> compassion, courage, just to name a few.
>>
>> I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions
>> of those terms, every one of them will be objectively
>> verifiable -- in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in
>> practice.
>
> Tough job.
>
> If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I
> can verify it's existence.
You worship ATP?
Dutch
news:041e149bdqeg16cun...@4ax.com...
Why is that?
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>> Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
> >>> exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
> >>> compassion, courage, just to name a few.
> >>
> >> I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions
> >> of those terms, every one of them will be objectively
> >> verifiable -- in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in
> >> practice.
> >
> > Tough job.
> >
> > If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I
> > can verify it's existence.
>
> You worship ATP?
The tennis tour? No
Christopher A. Lee
Duh. Because there are better words which don't carry the baggage
implicit in calling it "God".
You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
make her one.
Shuurai
> Corollary 2: Necessarily, God exists.
>
> After I've had my disguting way with the BAAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAH Knight of
> atheism's unwilling body I'll show you precisely where the killer twist of
> the logic knife is, assuming you don't spot it first, of course.
Why is it that the people most boastful about their logical skills are
typically the least capable of actually using logic? Killer twist of
the logic knife?? You showed up with a banana and stabbed yourself in
the eye.
You should say hello to Hal while you are here; might want to
introduce yourself to Renli as well. The three of you could make one
hell of a team, comedically speaking.
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> Ben Goren wrote:
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good
>>>>> character exists, interest in certain topics, affection,
>>>>> sense of humor, compassion, courage, just to name a few.
>>>>
>>>> I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions
>>>> of those terms, every one of them will be objectively
>>>> verifiable -- in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in
>>>> practice.
>>>
>>> Tough job.
>>>
>>> If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I
>>> can verify it's existence.
>>
>> You worship ATP?
>
> The tennis tour? No
Erm...no, not at all.
Adenosine tri-phosphate.
Kadaitcha Man
news:gNednUlHP43SiYrV...@comcast.com...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Translation: He doesn't get it.
Kadaitcha Man
That was made clear, you dense cunt.
> ote above?
>
> Did he or she ever publish it? Why or why not?
>
> The person who authored the ``proof'' is much better known for
> certain other works of logic. Care to mention the most famous
> of them? Also, other logicians worked on some very well-known
> variations on the same basic them. Care to mention any of them?
>
> The ``proof'' is, essentially, a formalization of a well-known
> argument for the existence of the modern Western theological god
> named, ``God.'' Who was the first to propose this argument, and
> what is the argument typically called?
Instead of asking irrelevant questions and making unshown assertions, how
about you knocking it down?
> If you can make it past that, then it might actually be worth the
> time to see if you can spot where the ``proof'' goes worng.
You have the proof. Spotting "where the ``proof'' goes worng" is your job,
hey.
Kadaitcha Man
news:2418d9f1-ee3e-421e...@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I note that you also only made unshown assertions, just like the
BAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAAH Knight of atheism. What kind of stupid fuckstick are you
that you hope someone will argue against your unshown claims? Hmmmm?
If there is something wrong with the proof, argue it and show it,
unequivocally, but you can't so you resort to chimpanzee mentality in the
hope someone will bite. Tut! Tut! Tut!
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> > You need to get your delusions seen to, loser. I am more than
> > beyond your sub-standard little league.
>
> <snork>
>
> Dude, you're just barely ready to graduate from T-ball.
>
> But since you've finally stopped dodging and weaving, I'll go
> ahead and toss you a couple easy pitches. But let's try to
> consolidate this thread, mkay?
>
> You'll have your response to the other post soon.
Ten to one says it's all dodge and no argument.
Ben Kaufman
>Dutch wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> Ben Goren wrote:
> >>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good
> >>>>> character exists, interest in certain topics, affection,
> >>>>> sense of humor, compassion, courage, just to name a few.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions
> >>>> of those terms, every one of them will be objectively
> >>>> verifiable -- in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in
> >>>> practice.
> >>>
> >>> Tough job.
> >>>
> >>> If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I
> >>> can verify it's existence.
> >>
> >> You worship ATP?
> >
> > The tennis tour? No
>
>Erm...no, not at all.
>
>Adenosine tri-phosphate.
>
>Cheers,
>
>b&
Then my vote is for Krebs cycle or glycolysis where the phosphorylation takes
place.
Ben
Ben Goren
>> Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP>
>
> That was made clear, you dense cunt.
No, you did not give credit. Instead, you most shamelessly
plagiarized (and, let's be honest here, corrupted -- that ``God =
Metaphysical X'' bullshit was nowhere in the original, and it
disastrously weakens the proof) the work of Kurt Godel.
You also ignored all the opportunities I gave you below to elevate
this to a meaningful discussion.
You are not worthy.
I'll throw you a couple quick bones, though, before I send you
packing.
Mr. Godel worked hard, very hard, on the ``proof'' you posted. He
very much wanted to prove the existence of his god. He never
succeeded, though, which is why he never published the proof. He
found it compelling, but not convincing.
The proof is a formalization of Anselm's Ontological Argument.
Anselm of Canterbury was an eleventh century philosopher and
theologian. His argument, in its essence, is that, for something
to be perfect, it must exist; therefore, God, being perfect, must
exist.
Stripped down like that, the flaw is obvious: there's no reason to
assume that perfection actually exists. And it's the same flaw in
Godel's own argument that renders the whole thing invalid. In
Godel's case, it's when he argues that ``Necessary existence is
positive.'' That just comes out of nowhere; there's simply no
reason to blindly assume that existence is necessarily better than
nonexistence. And, for that matter, no way to prove it, either.
One last little bone before I leave you to your sadly puffed-up
opinion of yourself. Most gods worshiped today are alleged to be
omnipotent. But, if you read my .sig a few lines down, you'll
see that ``omnipotence'' is itself a self-contradictory term,
even more than ``the largest prime number.'' And all the other
omni-properties shared by most modern gods fall to similar proofs,
too.
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> >> Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP>
> >
> > That was made clear, you dense cunt.
>
[QUOTE]
> but what you wrote above appears tautologous.
One would not reasonably expect tautological logic from Kurt Gödel.
"One of the most significant logicians of all time, Gödel's work has
had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century..." - wiki.
[/QUOTE]
Then the proof immediately followed.
It is your problem entirely that you lack the necessary two brain cells
required to join dot 1 to dot 2.
HTH
Smiler
Unless her name's Desiré :-)
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
DanielSan
Axiom 5 is unsupported. Go away, child. The adults are talking.
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>
>>>> Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP>
>>>
>>> That was made clear, you dense cunt.
>>
>> No<BITCHSLAP>
>
> news:1r362h....@news.alt.net
>
> [QUOTE]
>
>> but what you wrote above appears tautologous.
>
> One would not reasonably expect tautological logic from Kurt
> Godel.
>
> "One of the most significant logicians of all time, Godel's
> work has had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical
> thinking in the 20th century..." - wiki. [/QUOTE]
>
> Then the proof immediately followed.
>
> It is your problem entirely that you lack the necessary two
> brain cells required to join dot 1 to dot 2.
>
> HTH
<yawn>
Bored now.
In this and your other most recent posts, the list of things you
managed to not do is quite astounding. Or, it would be, if it
weren't so obvious that you're the poser you so clearly are.
You've not addressed the question of whether or not Godel's proof
fails because he assumes that existence is positive. You've
not addressed direct accusations of plagiarism. You've not even
bothered to read my .sig, which adapts Godel's most famous work in
order to prove that ``omnipotence'' is a self-contradictory
term. You've again refused to define the term, ``god,'' instead
whining about how you didn't read the very thread you're replying
to. And you're /far/ too stupid to understand how it might -- just
maybe -- be a problem for a ``god'' to be both ``metaphysical''
and be able to actually -- you know? Do things?
I dub thee, ``Macbeth's Life,'' for thou art truly a tale told by
an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
You might try actually engaging in a discussion sometime, ML. But,
until you do, adieu.
Kadaitcha Man
Unshown assertion. Claim fails.
> Go away, child. The adults are talking.
Ooooooh. Bitchy.
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Whose ``proof'' did you qu<BITCHSLAP>
> >>>
> >>> That was made clear, you dense cunt.
> >>
> >> No<BITCHSLAP>
> >
> > news:1r362h....@news.alt.net
> >
> > [QUOTE]
> >
> >> but what you wrote above appears tautologous.
> >
> > One would not reasonably expect tautological logic from Kurt
> > Godel.
> >
> > "One of the most significant logicians of all time, Godel's
> > work has had immense impact upon scientific and philosophical
> > thinking in the 20th century..." - wiki. [/QUOTE]
> >
> > Then the proof immediately followed.
> >
> > It is your problem entirely that you lack the necessary two
> > brain cells required to join dot 1 to dot 2.
> >
> > HTH
>
> <yawn>
Ask your mummy to tuck you in. And don't forget to ask her to check under
your bed for beasties and monsters.
> Bored now.
>
> In this and your other most recent posts, the list of things you
> managed to not do is quite astounding. Or, it would be, if it
> weren't so obvious that you're the poser you so clearly are.
>
> You've not addressed the question of whether or not Godel's proof
> fails<BITCHSLAP>
I do not need to address any of your questions. You need to show that
"Godel's proof fails". Until then, it stands, uncontested.
So, show that "Godel's proof fails", and please include your scrib^h working
out.
DanielSan
In order for my claim to fail, you have to show how it's an unshown
assertion by showing your evidence. Until that time, it remains
unsupported.
Ben Goren
> I do not need to address any of your questions.
Oh, but you do. And, until you do, there will be absolutely no
doubt whatsoever in your mind that you are every bit as ignorant
and inadequate as a banana slug at a horticulturist's convention.
Sorry, but your life's a bitch.
Goodbye.
Kadaitcha Man
Taking away your diatribe, you are left with "Axiom 5 is unsupported", which
is a completely unshown assertion. The counter-argument is "Axiom 5 is
supported".
If it is the case that "Axiom 5 is unsupported" then you could not have got
to the question that asked where "Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and
Wizardry" is. So, how did you arrive at that question within the framework
presented to you if "Axiom 5 is unsupported"? Hmmm?
DanielSan
I can't. Neither can you.
That was the purpose of this exercise. Godel was wrong. So are you.
Hogwarts doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. Your plagiarized logic is
wrong.
Kadaitcha Man
> Hamlet's Life moaned:
>
> > I do not need to address any of your questions.
>
DanielSan
> "Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
> news:1209523445_1031@isp.n...
>> Hamlet's Life moaned:
>>
>>> I do not need to address any of your questions.
>> O<BITCHSLAP>
>
> HTH
>
Translation: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
Kadaitcha Man
> Godel was wrong.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Signatured.
> So are you. Hogwarts doesn't exist. God doesn't exist. Your
> plagiarized logic is wrong.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that it is he who
was "one of the most significant logicians of all time", and had
an "immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century", not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> "Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
>> news:1209523445_1031@isp.n...
>>> Hamlet's Life moaned:
>>>
>>>> I do not need to address any of your questions.
>>> O<BITCHSLAP>
>>
>> HTH
>>
>
> Translation: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that it is he who
was "one of the most significant logicians of all time", and had
an "immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century", not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOd
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that it is he who
was "one of the most significant logicians of all time", and had
an "immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
20th century", not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOd
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com...
>
>> Godel was wrong.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> Signatured.
>
Godel's Ontological Argument contains axioms that are not sufficiently
self-evident. It is not a proof. It is an argument.
But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel like
an adult. You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others think
about me because they're going to form opinions about me based upon
their experience with me, not because you post a short three-word
sentence with no context.
Kadaitcha Man
> God doesn't exist.
PS: Proof, please.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qumdnd0mur2pe4rV...@comcast.com...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1209523445_1031@isp.n...
>>>> Hamlet's Life moaned:
>>>>
>>>>> I do not need to address any of your questions.
>>>> O<BITCHSLAP>
>>> HTH
>>>
>> Translation: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
>
>
> "Godel was wrong."
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that it is he who
> was "one of the most significant logicians of all time", and had
> an "immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
> 20th century", not Kurt Gödel.
> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOd
>
Can you show where I claim either of those quotes you say I'm asserting?
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com...
>
>> God doesn't exist.
>
> PS: Proof, please.
>
Ra. Extrapolate.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:6mve14ht3nul4jc72...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:37:32 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:041e149bdqeg16cun...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>"Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
>>>>> > exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
>>>>> > compassion, courage, just to name a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
>>>>> those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
>>>>> in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.
>>>>
>>>>Tough job.
>>>>
>>>>If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can
>>>>verify
>>>>it's existence.
>>>
>>> That would be dishonest.
>>
>>Why is that?
>
> Duh. Because there are better words which don't carry the baggage
> implicit in calling it "God".
>
> You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
> make her one.
Dutch is big on making up definitions to suit himself.
Kadaitcha Man
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com...
>>
>>> Godel was wrong.
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>
>> Signatured.
>>
>
> Godel's Ontological Argument contains axioms that are not sufficiently
> self-evident. It is not a proof. It is an argument.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Results 1 - 100 of about 2,130 English pages for Godel's "Ontological
Proof". (0.66 seconds)
It appears there are scholars who disagree with you. So, since you've
already claimed a greater expanse of skill, fame and knowledge than Gödel,
what are your university qualifications, affiliations and achievements in
regard to philosophy and formal logic systems?
Names, dates, places, please.
> But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel like an
> adult. You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others think about
> me because they're going to form opinions about me based upon their
> experience with me, not because you post a short three-word sentence with
> no context.
I recommend you begin asserting your supremacy over "one of the most
significant logicians of all time" by signing up for editing rights on
wikipedia. Apparently it's listed there as "Gödel's ontological proof".
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! You less than fucking useless atheist pillock.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
Kadaitcha Man
The quoted text is a paraphrase of the extrapolated implications of your mad
assertion that "Godel was wrong."
Proving yourself to be a total, illogical fuckwit by making assertions in
the complete absence of any consideration whatsoever for the consequences is
all you have done in these threads. You have done nothing else.
Does it come as a surprise to you that you are bitchslapped for that yet
again? Hmmm?
Stiff shit for you. Enjoy your ignominy, retard.
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that he is one of
the most significant logicians of all time, not Kurt Gödel.
news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com
"The firmware of a router can become sick after awhile of continuous
Kadaitcha Man
You can't prove it, huh?
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bqSdnW4u5foWdIrV...@comcast.com...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> Godel was wrong.
>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>>>
>>> Signatured.
>>>
>> Godel's Ontological Argument contains axioms that are not sufficiently
>> self-evident. It is not a proof. It is an argument.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
>
> Results 1 - 100 of about 2,130 English pages for Godel's "Ontological
> Proof". (0.66 seconds)
>
> It appears there are scholars who disagree with you. So, since you've
> already claimed a greater expanse of skill, fame and knowledge than Gödel,
> what are your university qualifications, affiliations and achievements in
> regard to philosophy and formal logic systems?
The axioms are not sufficiently self evident.
Results 1 - 10 of about 197 for Godel's "ontological proof"
self-evident. (0.27 seconds)
In order for an axiom to be true, it has to be self-evident. Axiom 5 is
not, on its own.
>
> Names, dates, places, please.
I don't need to give them to you. It is evident that you don't know what
Godel's Ontological Argument is.
>
>> But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel like an
>> adult. You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others think about
>> me because they're going to form opinions about me based upon their
>> experience with me, not because you post a short three-word sentence with
>> no context.
>
> I recommend you begin asserting your supremacy over "one of the most
> significant logicians of all time" by signing up for editing rights on
> wikipedia. Apparently it's listed there as "Gödel's ontological proof".
From your cite:
Critique of definitions and axioms
There are several reasons Gödel's axioms may not be realistic, including
the following:
* It may be impossible to properly satisfy axiom 3, which assumes
that a conjunction of positive properties is also a positive property;
for the proof to work, the axiom must be taken to apply to arbitrary,
not necessarily finite, collections of properties. Moreover, some
positive properties may be incompatible with others. For example mercy
may be incompatible with justice. In that case the conjunction would be
an impossible property and G(x) would be false of every x. Ted Drange
has made this objection to the coherence of attributing all positive
properties to God - see this article for Drange's list of incompatible
properties and some counter arguments. For these reasons, this axiom was
replaced in some reworkings of the proof (including Anderson's, below)
by the assumption that G(x) is positive (Pos(G(x)).
* The set of all properties of any object a as a candidate for the
set of all positive properties is always consistent with axioms 1–4
concerning positive properties, because the true statements P(a) form a
class of statements closed under deduction. Any one property could be
claimed to be positive, so long as it is not self-contradictory, with
the right choice of a. Specifically, any property that can be possessed
without contradiction is positive in some model of axioms 1–4, and any
property that can be avoided without contradiction is non-positive in
some model of axioms 1–4. Positivity of a property is as implicitly
defined as anything can get. Why, then, should any one property (such as
the one addressed in axiom 5) be assumed to be positive, given that no
such statement is ever a tautology (although it can be a contradiction
if the property is unsatisfiable)? Note that, with the right choice of
axiom 5, all sorts of things could be proven (see also the objection
below), an error common in some form to all ontological arguments. This
problem with axiom 5 is a logically inescapable point, and is similar to
the demonstration that, in the deontic logic of Ernst Mally, a statement
is morally necessary if and only if it is true.
* It was argued by Jordan Sobel that Gödel's axioms are too strong:
they imply that all possible worlds are identical. He proved this result
by considering the property "is such that X is true", where X is any
true modal statement about the world. If g is a Godlike object, and X is
in fact true, then g must possess this property, and hence must possess
it necessarily. But then X is a necessary truth. A similar argument
shows that all falsehoods are necessary falsehoods. C. Anthony Anderson
gave a slightly different axiomatic system which attempts to avoid this
problem.
In Anderson's system, Axioms 1, 2, and 5 above are unchanged; however
sthe other axioms are replaced with:
Axiom 3': G(x) is positive.
Axiom 4': If a property is positive, its negation is not positive.
These axioms leave open the possibility that a Godlike object will
possess some non-positive properties, provided that these properties are
contingent rather than necessary.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA! You less than fucking useless atheist pillock.
>
Godel is one of the most significant logicians of all time. He wasn't
infallible, though.
By the way, how old are you? Maturity-wise, that is? You don't seem to
be able to converse without using 3rd-grade schoolyard-style insults.
Grow up.
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bqSdnWku5fpqdIrV...@comcast.com...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qumdnd0mur2pe4rV...@comcast.com...
>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>> "Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1209523445_1031@isp.n...
>>>>>> Hamlet's Life moaned:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not need to address any of your questions.
>>>>>> O<BITCHSLAP>
>>>>> HTH
>>>>>
>>>> Translation: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!
>>>
>>> "Godel was wrong."
>>> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that it is he who
>>> was "one of the most significant logicians of all time", and had
>>> an "immense impact upon scientific and philosophical thinking in the
>>> 20th century", not Kurt Gödel.
>>> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrVnZ2dnUVZ_vOd
>>>
>> Can you show where I claim either of those quotes you say I'm asserting?
>
>
> The quoted text is a paraphrase of the extrapolated implications of your mad
> assertion that "Godel was wrong."
"...in this case" is the context you're missing.
>
> Proving yourself to be a total, illogical fuckwit by making assertions in
> the complete absence of any consideration whatsoever for the consequences is
> all you have done in these threads. You have done nothing else.
Except show that the axioms provided in the argument are not
sufficiently self-evident and are, therefore, not true axioms.
>
> Does it come as a surprise to you that you are bitchslapped for that yet
> again? Hmmm?
By you? I'm not worried about being bitchslapped by you. You're a
small-minded plagiarist who doesn't even know what he posts. No, I'm
not really worried about what you think of me. I doubt anyone else
cares what you think, either.
>
> Stiff shit for you. Enjoy your ignominy, retard.
>
Do you imagine that I have ignominy in alt.atheism (from which I post
and read this)? Or is it you that has that? I can cobble together a
poll of likely posters, if you wish.
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bqSdnWgu5fqHd4rV...@comcast.com...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>> God doesn't exist.
>>> PS: Proof, please.
>>>
>> Ra. Extrapolate.
>
>
> You can't prove it, huh?
>
You didn't even understand what I said, did you? It's just two words.
Which word did you have a problem with?
Kadaitcha Man
Real meaning: He's qualified only to swill the pigs.
>>> But, go ahead and signature me out of context if it makes you feel like
>>> an adult. You see, unlike you, I don't really care what others think
>>> about me because they're going to form opinions about me based upon
>>> their experience with me, not because you post a short three-word
>>> sentence with no context.
>>
>> I recommend you begin asserting your supremacy over "one of the most
>> significant logicians of all time" by signing up for editing rights on
>> wikipedia. Apparently it's listed there as "Gödel's ontological proof".
>
> From your cite:
What cite?
You get to go no further until you sort that one out.
> By the way, how old are you?
I will not have sex with you unless you give me the candy first, mister.
> Grow up.
Grow a brain.
DanielSan
You cited Wikipedia.
<snip childishness>
Kadaitcha Man
The work was credited immediately before it was pasted. If plagiarism were
involved it would have been immediately drawn to my attention by my auk
colleagues, for they shall not tolerate such perfidy. I do not see anyone
other than you and the BAAWAAAAAAAWAAAAAAH Knight of fuckwittery pushing
that particular barrow.
> I doubt anyone else cares what you think, either.
Note how you are attempting to minimise potential impact to yourself? Hmmm?
>> Stiff shit for you. Enjoy your ignominy, retard.
>>
>
> Do you imagine that I have ignominy in alt.atheism (from which I post and
> read this)? Or is it you that has that? I can cobble together a poll of
> likely posters,
Note how you are attempting to maximise potential support for yourself?
Hmmm?
Tell me again how not worried you are.
> if you wish.
How about you post a list of names of likely posters first?
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
Kadaitcha Man
So is "Proof, please."
> Which word did you have a problem with?
Right back at ya.
Kadaitcha Man
I did no such thing. Take careful note of the word "Apparently".
cite
To quote as an authority or example.
apparently
Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming
> <snip childishness>
So, what university did you go to that they taught you that a superficial
reference is equivalent to a quoted authority?
Dutch
news:6mve14ht3nul4jc72...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:37:32 GMT, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>>news:041e149bdqeg16cun...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>>"Ben Goren" <b...@trumpetpower.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good character
>>>>> > exists, interest in certain topics, affection, sense of humor,
>>>>> > compassion, courage, just to name a few.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions of
>>>>> those terms, every one of them will be objectively verifiable --
>>>>> in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in practice.
>>>>
>>>>Tough job.
>>>>
>>>>If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I can
>>>>verify
>>>>it's existence.
>>>
>>> That would be dishonest.
>>
>>Why is that?
>
> Duh. Because there are better words which don't carry the baggage
> implicit in calling it "God".
Well I don't actually call it god either, I prefer the words "presence" or
"being", but for those who like the word God in my view this is precisely
what all these religious folks have been trying to get at without knowing
it. It is said "God is everywhere", "God is within you", "I am the light",
"Consider the lilies of the fields, how they grow.." etc etc It all points
to God being that ever-changing and evolving in the moment life
force/energy/intelligence/organization that imbues all living matter, all
matter.
> You can define your aunt as a streetcar if you like, but it doesn't
> make her one.
You don't know my aunt <rimshot>
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > Ben Goren wrote:
> >> Dutch wrote:
> >>> Ben Goren wrote:
> >>>> Dutch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Much exists that is not objectively verifiable. Good
> >>>>> character exists, interest in certain topics, affection,
> >>>>> sense of humor, compassion, courage, just to name a few.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you'll find that, once you provide cogent definitions
> >>>> of those terms, every one of them will be objectively
> >>>> verifiable -- in theory, at least, and, for the most part, in
> >>>> practice.
> >>>
> >>> Tough job.
> >>>
> >>> If I define god as that force which energizes living things, I
> >>> can verify it's existence.
> >>
> >
> > The tennis tour? No
>
> Erm...no, not at all.
>
> Adenosine tri-phosphate.
Whoa! Google time...
OK, a inter-molecular chemical agent, more or less. No I don't worship that.
Actually I don't believe in worship at all, it's one of the biggest errors
in thinking in human history.
I prefer to simply be still in the present moment intensely aware of the
spacious energy deep within and all around me. If god is anything its that.
Dutch
news:42SRj.2417$Zs1.1961@trndny07...
I'd like to take credit for that one but it's been around in Eastern
spiritualism for a few thousand years, and aboriginal religion as well.
Beldin the Sorcerer
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:JwURj.230491$pM4.227783@pd7urf1no...
No, 'God' mostly was "whatever the hell we don't understand at the moment"
>
Shuurai
> I note that you also only made unshown assertions, just like the
> BAAWAAAAAAHWAAAAAH Knight of atheism. What kind of stupid fuckstick are you
> that you hope someone will argue against your unshown claims? Hmmmm?
What kind of stupid fuckstick are you to think you can cut-and-paste
something that most first-year philosophy students can debunk by
midterms and have it actually fly on a public newsgroup? I mean
seriously... I have to say I find you to be a bit of a letdown. All
that shit in your sig about being an uber-kook and this is the best
you can do?
> If there is something wrong with the proof, argue it and show it,
> unequivocally, but you can't so you resort to chimpanzee mentality in the
> hope someone will bite. Tut! Tut! Tut!
The essence of the problem is this: An infinite number of parallel
arguments arise from your (stolen) proof. According to your argument,
there is a god for every collection of positive properties. Indeed,
any "thing" than has positive properties is in fact "god", and yet
distinct. You've essentually "proven" that there are an infinite
number of gods and that every single thing that exists *is* in fact a
seperate and distinct god. At the same time, you've "proven" that any
single thing that anyone says exists must exist, for the mere fact of
their saying it. Elves and unicorns exist; your "proof" says it must
be so.
Definition 1: x is God(n)-like iff x has as essential properties those
and only those properties which are positive, except for P1,..., Pn.
Definition 2: A is an essence of x iff for every property B, x has B
necessarily iff A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists iff every essence of x is
necessarily exemplified.
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by (strictly implied by) a positive
property is positive.
Axiom 3: The property of being God(n)-like is positive.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive.
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive, and distinct from each of
P1,..., Pn.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent
(exemplified).
Corollary 1: The property of being God(n)-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God(n)-like, then the property of being
God(n)-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God(n)-like is
exemplified.
Dutch
That's one also, and "that Big Dude who will smack you down if you don't pay
homage to the church".
But going beyond organized religion, going beyond atheism and anti-religion,
beyond all the duality, there is something real and worthwhile that in my
opinon was the real message of people like Buddha and Jesus and others. It
defies description but it has to do with tapping into the raw power of life
itself.
DanielSan
It should've been credited at the time of posting.
>
>> I doubt anyone else cares what you think, either.
>
> Note how you are attempting to minimise potential impact to yourself? Hmmm?
Not at all.
>
>>> Stiff shit for you. Enjoy your ignominy, retard.
>>>
>> Do you imagine that I have ignominy in alt.atheism (from which I post and
>> read this)? Or is it you that has that? I can cobble together a poll of
>> likely posters,
>
> Note how you are attempting to maximise potential support for yourself?
> Hmmm?
>
> Tell me again how not worried you are.
None.
>
>> if you wish.
>
> How about you post a list of names of likely posters first?
>
How worried are you?
DanielSan
> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZdSdnZ3IMdlXborV...@comcast.com...
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bqSdnWgu5fqHd4rV...@comcast.com...
>>>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>>> "DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:qumdnaImur0KeIrV...@comcast.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> God doesn't exist.
>>>>> PS: Proof, please.
>>>>>
>>>> Ra. Extrapolate.
>>>
>>> You can't prove it, huh?
>>>
>> You didn't even understand what I said, did you? It's just two words.
>
> So is "Proof, please."
I provided it.
>
>> Which word did you have a problem with?
>
> Right back at ya.
>
I provided it. Look, you don't seem to understand what I provided.
That's fine. I just don't see anything further being produced from this
dialog, so I'm cutting it off here. If you feel the need to piss and
moan about it, please do so.
I have better things to do.
DanielSan
I've already tried that with KM. He started taunting me that I was
insulting Godel...somehow.
He has not, to date, provided scientific evidence of God. Just mental
masturbation.
I have not killfiled him in hopes that he will post something scientific
(I just won't respond to him until he does) about God... but I doubt it.
Kadaitcha Man
What the fuck do you suppose "The work was credited immediately before it
was pasted". means, you dumbfuck atheist cunt?
--
alt.usenet.kooks
"We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us."
Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129]
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Member of:
Usenet Ruiner List
Top Assholes on the Net List
Most hated usenetizens of all time List
Cog in the AUK Hate Machine List
Find me on Google Maps: 24°39'47.13"S, 134°4'20.18"E
"If it is non-empirical, then it does not exist."
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> asserting that his mind does
not exist. news:IpydnUYo8ssX54zV...@comcast.com
"Godel was wrong."
Kadaitcha Man
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!